pelican:
>>There is no evidence that GM foods caused these increases but suggests more research is needed.<<

That's right, no evidence. Remember that when next you are on the receiving end of some nasty inference with no basis. Maybe something like "He/she hangs around children a lot. It's not proven that he's a pedophile, but it suggests more investigation is needed."
You see how that line of reasoning cannot be used.

>> we non-farmers have a right to be able to eat food that has been fully tested and declared safe to humans.<< Apart from the fact that it has been tested and declared safe, you are right,you do. That's why you can have a choice to eat non-GM food, simple. Nobody's stopping you.


>>Are the anti-GM farmers real farmers? I would think they deserve the right to be heard as much as pro-GM farmers<<

Yes, they do. But does the minority ever have the right to shout down the majority? This is not a democratic principle.
Pro-GM farmers should have a right to grow GM crops that have been tested and registered. Non-GM farmers also have a right to not grow grow GM-crops, that's fine.
In Percy Schmeisers case, he wanted it both ways, not pay the royalty fee that comes with growing the crop (patent protection) and reap the rewards.
But he got found out (shown in court) and now he has rewritten history to try and be a poster-coot for anti-GM campaigners.

Cuphandle,

If you're going to pretend to be a farmer, you may as well pretend to understand what a conventional hybrid is, how it's used and how that differs to GM. Those tomatoes are not bred for seed and you should know that. I am only pointing out the REAL errors in what you say Cuphandle, if you think that makes you look stupid, that's not my fault.

What angers me the most in all of this, is the attitde of a small minority of supposed farmers against the majority of their peers. But that's what happens in most of society I guess.

I can see you are angry Bugsy but consumers become angry too when they have goods foisted apon them for the sake of a dollar if safety has taken a poor second in the development and marketing of that product.

"That's right, no evidence. Remember that when next you are on the receiving end of some nasty inference with no basis. Maybe something like "He/she hangs around children a lot. It's not proven that he's a pedophile, but it suggests more investigation is needed.
You see how that line of reasoning cannot be used."

This legal or justic system example is irrelevant and an incongruous comparison to use in relation to my earlier post.

I was making a statement that given the increases in various medical conditions (from as yet unknown causes) you cannot rule out GM food given the outcome of some of the studies I posted (which you have ignored).

If there is a correleation between the introduction of GM food and the increase in various medical conditions a scientist cannot ignore that correlation. Enough empirical and rhetorical evidence is very often used to provide the basis of futher research.

Pelican,

Ah, the Pusztai report. Here's what his colleague had to say about that: http://silver-server.dur.ac.uk/GM_Plants_Pages/Lancet.html

Shoddy science does no one any favours.

MON863 is not unsafe, it has been tested the results interpreted and reviewed by the European Commission.
The 'reinterpretation' of the data (funded by Greenpeace) was found to be erroneous. Talk about bias.

To quote the main conclusions from the European Commission:
• The statistical analysis made by the authors of the paper did not take into account certain important statistical considerations. The assumptions underlying the statistical methodology employed by the authors led to misleading results.
• EFSA considers that the paper does not present a sound scientific justification in order to question the safety of MON863 maize.
• Observed statistically significant differences reported by Monsanto, Séralini et al., and EFSA, were considered not to be biologically relevant. In the absence of any indications that the observed differences are indicative of adverse effects, the GMO Panel does not consider that this paper raises new issues with respect to the safety of MON 863 maize. Therefore, the GMO Panel sees no reason to revise its previous Opinions that the MON 863 maize would not have an adverse effect in the context of its proposed use.

As I said: didn't happen.

You proposed the analogy with pharmaceuticals, I merely extended it. If you cannot see the real harm that can be done to people suffering from diseases that can be treated with real medicines by administering placebos instead, then I cannot have a real discussion with you.
As I said, it's ideologically driven, not science.

There are many correlations with the rise in allergies over the decades, eg. pollution, food additives, computers and stress.
The tiny amount of GM that anyone in Australia has consumed since 1990 would be nowhere near enough to account for any of what you believe.
Especially when combined with info from the feeding studies and looking at rates of these things in various countries and the amount of GM they consume- the correlations don't hold.

Your reasoning is fallacious, and the statisticians know it.

Looking at what appear to be some of this forums sponsor, I am not surprised at the magnitude of pro biotech comments.
One thing that has struck me about the so called 'debate' on genetically engineered food crops (and cotton - cottonseed oil is sold as edible) is the degree to which pro GM advocates indulge in attacking messengers - rather than answering questions.
For example, Jeffrey M. Smith - author of Seeds of Deception and the very recent Genetic Roulette - has thrown down a challenge to GM advocates and scientists. In Genetic Roulette he has set out a daunting list of possible health dangers arising from the consumption of food made from GM constructs. He has invited GM advocates to set out - in scientific terms - where his claims are wrong.
Last I knew, the response has been personal attacks on Smith. Shooting the messenger!
Why, I want to know, has no biotech scientist or corporation risen to his challenge?
If what he has presented in his book is wrong, surely it must be within the competence of scientists in the pay of the biotech corporations to demonstrate, in clear scientific terms, where he is in error.

Every farmer, every consumer, should pour a liberal dose of salt on any claims by the biotech industry. My experience over several years is that the truth behind most (if not all) biotech mantras - is the opposite to what the mantra claims.
This most particularly applies to the biotech - and chemical - giant Monsanto.
Anyone who in any way trusts Monsanto should take a good hard look at reality.
A French TV production company has recently released a powerful DVD (French/English/German) called The World According to Monsanto. This 109 minute documentary presents a damning indictment of this giant corporation, starting after WWII through to the present day. How anybody could buy the Monsanto line after watching this outstanding production is beyond me!
The DVD can be obtained from the producers
http://www.arte-boutique.fr/detailProduct.action?product.id=245754

Bugsy wrote:

"Ah, the Pusztai report. Here's what his colleague had to say about that: http://silver-server.dur.ac.uk/GM_Plants_Pages/Lancet.html

Shoddy science does no one any favours."

Your resort to a smear of scientists is pretty transparent. And you don't mention that Pusztai was subsequetly vindicated by an expert panel. (Google "Pusztai vindicated", for example.)

It's interesting, isn't it, that the pro-GM lobby always claims "sound science" for industry-partnered studies and "junk science" for the views of independently-commissioned scientists.

Given that this is a very disputed area and there is much evidence suggesting danger to our health, economy and environment, I would suggest we practice precaution until regulators start requiring rigorous testing. This is the majority of Australians' views on GM, but it seems too radical a proposition for the pro-GM lobby, who are slaves to progress propaganda and want to inflict GM on an unwitting market.

Thank you, Duncan Currie, for an excellent article.

As I said, this 'debate' against GM-foods is mostly ideologically driven.

Isn't it amazing that if you say that a particular anti-GM study is flawed or irrelevant, it's a 'smear' against the researcher and that study still outweighs any number of studies that find nothing to suggest that it's unsafe. Of course, it's not a smear to suggest that all researchers working on or advocating the use of GM crops are being paid by biotech companies or the Monsanto boogeyman, even when that is not the case.

As has been noted before, the potatoes Pusztai used were not for commercial release and never have been. In fact, they were a part of the testing and screening process that anti-GM groups say doesn't exist!

Then, to top it all off all GM work is smeared with the same brush, when in fact they can and should be looked at on a case by case basis.

For every thousand scientists working on GM plants, testing for safety, efficacy etc., there is always one scientist who will say something else (often about a limited study on a non-released product!), and that one will be given a louder voice than all the others by political groups with strong ideologies.

The message to the next generation is clear: stay away from controversial science or you'll regret it too. No wonder the number of new scientists is decreasing, you aren't paid enough to put up with all that crap.

Meanwhile, all of the problems associated with conventional cropping continue accumulate (increasing pesticide use and associated residues, fertilisers etc) without any incentives or alternatives to reduce them. And the idea that organic farming can save the world and feed the current starving millions is more ideologically based than reality. The insects will see to that.